PassionToDestroyJul 2, 2024
AnarchoNinaWrites

I cannot stress this enough - SCOTUS did not define what is an official act. So all you folks saying "well okay so now Biden can..." are not getting the bigger picture here. The President is immune for official acts, courts will decide what is official, and SCOTUS has last rule on whatever courts decide.

So if Trump does some fascist shit they like? That'll be official. And if Biden tries to do something they don't like? Unless it's written into LAW that's a Presidential power, it won't be.

Jul 1, 2024 at 5:09pmWeb
Show threadAnarchoNinaWritesJul 1, 2024

SCOTUS now has last call on what is an executive power. And last call on what Congress can pass. And last call on how laws can be regulated and enforced. And they already had last call on how laws and the Constitution can be interpreted.

When I say Judicial Coup, I'm not using a term of art here. They have placed themselves above and in power over, every single branch of government in the United States. This is the kinda shit WE do to CIA-backed puppet dictatorships.

Show threadEatonJul 1, 2024
@AnarchoNinaWrites ah, but traditionally…
Show threadEzra FreeloveJul 1, 2024
@AnarchoNinaWrites the kind of thing we do in CIA-puppet states right before the people rise up and overthrow the government.
Show threadAnarchoNinaWritesJul 1, 2024
@ezrasf THIS is a plan I can get behind...
Show threadrrbJul 1, 2024
@AnarchoNinaWrites Assuming that the Justices survive those "official acts"
Show threadAviva GaryJul 1, 2024
@AnarchoNinaWrites literally this and most every comment here is correct 👀
Show threadclimate voter/degrowthistJul 1, 2024
@AnarchoNinaWrites The rule of law is over. Democracy is over.
Show threadMichaelPhillipsJul 3, 2024
@AnarchoNinaWrites to be fair it's the sort of thing that the svr does in their own backed puppet dictatorships. And they've been spending a lot of money here for a while now
Show threadSaffron🏳️‍⚧️Jul 1, 2024
@AnarchoNinaWrites as it always has been, the goal of the ruling class is to establish double standards into law so they can do the discrimination part at the time of enforcement
Show threadSaurav ShresthaJul 1, 2024
@spinach @AnarchoNinaWrites run time error checking vs compile time error checking
Show threadAsta [AMP]Jul 1, 2024
@AnarchoNinaWrites And I wouldn't take bets on that "unless it's written into law" part flying, either.
Show threadNonya Bidniss 🥥🌴Jul 1, 2024
@AnarchoNinaWrites Yup
Show threadMartha LemertJul 1, 2024

@AnarchoNinaWrites

That is exactly what Justice Jackson points out in her dissent. This is a judicial coup and power grab.

We are voting in November not on any one candidate or even for a political party. We are voting on whether this government is of the people by the people and for the people or of the powerful (SCOTUS/President) , by the powerful and for the powerful.

Show threadBig Beautiful Blue WallJul 1, 2024

@AnarchoNinaWrites

Personally I'm saying "Now Biden can't but Trump can and will after he wins"

Show threadAnarchoNinaWritesJul 1, 2024
@BlueWall That is afaict, the correct interpretation of what this ruling means in practical terms.
Show threadMorten Hilker-SkaaningJul 1, 2024
@AnarchoNinaWrites the president can just install a court that says what he wants.
Show threadAnarchoNinaWritesJul 1, 2024

@morten_skaaning And my fairy godmother might show up and and banish Trump and all the fascists to the negative zone.

But I prefer to spend my time discussing things that might happen.

Show threadMrBadger42Jul 1, 2024
@AnarchoNinaWrites And if the official act is to remove the court members he doesn’t like??? Sotomayor seems to disagree with you. Read her dissenting opinion.
Show threadAnarchoNinaWritesJul 1, 2024

@mrbadger42 That will not make it past a court. Sotomayor is simply saying the court now has the power to do it. But good luck with that plan; first you'll need to find a President willing to try it, then you'll need to stop fascist judges from undoing it.

Might as well give yourself superpowers and a pony while you're at it.

Show threadMrBadger42Jul 4, 2024
@AnarchoNinaWrites If course this is somewhat tongue-in-cheek. But but only somewhat. It seems to me they have essentially nullified the rule of law. In which case all bets are off. This isn’t going to be pretty.
Show threadAnarchoNinaWritesJul 4, 2024

@mrbadger42 I mean that's the thing right? I can think of lots of things Biden COULD do, I just don't think he WILL do any of them. It's very frustrating that all roads lead to "respect the court that doesn't respect the law and is trying to install fascism forever" because that's all the other team has.

These are the same folks who responded to protesting at SCOTUS judges houses by calling protestors terrorists and making it extra illegal to be there.

Show threadAda Worcester 🏳️‍⚧️Jul 1, 2024
@AnarchoNinaWrites yep, pretty much unless biden immediately has them shot _today_, which i ain't holding my breath on him doing, the SCOTUS will just pick and choose whatever they want to allow. :|
Show threadAnarchoNinaWritesJul 1, 2024
@pikhq I'd vote for THAT; but like you, I don't believe it's in the cards.
Show threadJoshJul 2, 2024
@AnarchoNinaWrites If I might offer my own respectful “concurring opinion” — SCOTUS did rule on official acts, several times, and they cited it in their majority opinions today. They cited Blassingame and even Clinton v. Jones.

The danger here isn’t that this isn’t /well enough/ defined, it’s that this court has unfortunately nonstop in the last few years normalized them saying “oh yeah but not that” to dismiss ALL KINDS OF PRECEDENT that they themselves have set.

“Official acts” is defined well enough, it just won’t matter when it’s time for them to reverse engineer the outcome they want in whatever scenarios we face next.